Why? Because I don't pretend like Libyans somehow owe us something? We didn't help them at all, we dismantled the law and gave the country over to maniacs. Isn't that quite obvious? Should I have thought, like an idiot, that they were now going to kiss our feet and side with us on every issue? I don't know if you remember, but I was a staunch supporter of Gaddafi maintaining power. I hope now it's become obvious to the idiots why.

Here's a good way to put it. The Libyans who killed the diplomats should not have stopped and thought "hey, America has done a lot to help us. Maybe we shouldn't do this". They should have stopped and thought "Hey, these INNOCENT PEOPLE had absolutely nothing to do with anything, probably have no idea why we are rioting, and are not responsible in any way, shape, or form for whatever we are angry about". Sorry if that logic flies over some of your heads.

I'm not too familiar with the Libyan situation, other than Gaddaffi was called on by international + internal pressures to step down, while he fired cruise missiles into his own civilians. due to light US involvement (no fly zone set up, and ballistic strikes on Libyan stations that intelligence thought could harm innocent civilians) eventually Gaddaffi was ousted from power, eventually killed, and no true leader stepped up in his place.

Gaddafi fires cruise missiles into a militan rebel uprising trying to overthrow the government. If you can name me one country that wouldn't respond to an armed uprising in the exact same way than I'll consider your point valid.

Animal - if you knew wtf you were talking about, you would know most middle easterners and conservative Muslims despised secular Gaddafi. Maybe it's best you stay out of this thread so I don't have to define and correct these basics anymore. And I didn't support Gaddafi as much as I supported an orderly transfer of power within the confines of international law, not through violent civil war.

Here's a good way to put it. The Libyans who killed the diplomats should not have stopped and thought "hey, America has done a lot to help us. Maybe we shouldn't do this". They should have stopped and thought "Hey, these INNOCENT PEOPLE had absolutely nothing to do with anything, probably have no idea why we are rioting, and are not responsible in any way, shape, or form for whatever we are angry about". Sorry if that logic flies over some of your heads.

Honestly they should have thought both things, though they are innocent civilians first and Americans second. Americans intervened in the favor of their revolutionaries and this would be remembered by most countries. America never asked them to create a secular democracy or anything in return. We simply took our pro revolutionary stance and responded to their requests for help on the ground. The fact that you and other people do not see this is both shocking and troubling.

Honestly they should have thought both things, though they are innocent civilians first and Americans second. Americans intervened in the favor of their revolutionaries and this would be remembered by most countries. America never asked them to create a secular democracy or anything in return. We simply took our pro revolutionary stance and responded to their requests for help on the ground. The fact that you and other people do not see this is both shocking and troubling.

Seriously, this.

We AIDED the Libyan revolutionists in their overtake of Gaddaffi. Without our help, I'm pretty sure a formal army with air support, artillery fire, and tanks/armored vehicles would have steamrolled whatever resistance their revolution put together via facebook+twitter.

And these same revolutionaries have the gall to slay OUR Ambassador to THEIR country because of a VIDEO that some nutjob extremist posted to youtube & made viral.

Like... I can't even explain that type of retarded mentality that takes to conjur up inside one's mind; Libya and Egypt are literally living 250 years in the past and have an extremely warped sense of reality.

What I don't understand is why you would expect anti-American militants to think that. Is this really that difficult to understand? Theyre freaking anti-American for god sakes. Arabic al-Jazeera is reporting that the attack was pre-planned by pro-Gaddafi militants and that they did not intentionally target the Ambassador specifically.

What I don't understand is why you would expect anti-American militants to think that. Is this really that difficult to understand? They're freaking anti-American for god sakes. Arabic al-Jazeera is reporting that the attack was pre-planned by pro-Gaddafi militants and that they did not intentionally target the Ambassador specifically.

But why though? America helped them succeed. It is hard for me to understand why revolutionaries that aided in our assistance would just as quickly turn against an ally.

if they are 'pro-Gaddaffi' that's one plausible explanation, as we aided in his downfall.

If they were pro-revolutionaries, then IDK what to think about their motivation except they will literally cling to their Holy Book above all other reasoning, which is just sad. People make more inflammatory comments on this board to each other, yet we just get the **** over it because that's what freedom is all about. Say/do what you want, but do not harm others unless you feel like dealing with the legal consequences.

And obviously they didn't intend to kill that man, they fired a rocket at the building. They intentionally targeted the building with 0 regard to who may be inside.

And they still dragged his corpse through the street, so don't play the sympathy card like they somehow feel bad about the loss of his life.

They didn't drag his corpse through the street, they carried his body to the hospital. Look it up.

Right now it seems like the attack was pre-planned by anti-American militias who used the protests at the consulate as the right time to strike. The people who attacked were not pro-revolutionary fighters, they were anti-American fighters, possibly pro Gaddafi. And what I meant to say is that he wasn't specifically targeted.

I say anybody who wants to die over a video that they didn't like should be given the opportunity to do just that. They need to send in Marsoc and anybody involved with the slayings of our US personnel shall meet the same fate. Next time anybody starts to get crazy in a protest outside of a US embassy, extreme EOF measures should be emplaced.

They didn't drag his corpse through the street, they carried his body to the hospital. Look it up.

Right now it seems like the attack was pre-planned by anti-American militias who used the protests at the consulate as the right time to strike. The people who attacked were not pro-revolutionary fighters, they were anti-American fighters, possibly pro Gaddafi. And what I meant to say is that he wasn't specifically targeted.

Also, wtf does that even mean?

Are you suggesting that pro-revolutionaries could also be anti-american?

" Tuesday's attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was planned in advance, and the attackers used the protest outside the consulate as a diversion, U.S. sources told CNN Wednesday."

"Ibrahim Dabbashi told the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday that the attack, which killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three American diplomats, "in no way serves the interests of Libya" and "gravely damages the image of Islam."

Is anti-americanism its own sect that represents its own interests, or does that hate feed through both sides of the civil war?

I'm genuinely interested and curious.

You're right. I misspoke. Pro-revolutionaries can also be anti-American, like Al-Qaeda which was very active in the Libyan revolution. Did you expect all pro-revolutionaries to be pro-American? I'm pretty sure it's been well known for over a year that many of the rebels in Libya are anti-American and terrorists.

" Tuesday's attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was planned in advance, and the attackers used the protest outside the consulate as a diversion, U.S. sources told CNN Wednesday."

"Ibrahim Dabbashi told the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday that the attack, which killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three American diplomats, "in no way serves the interests of Libya" and "gravely damages the image of Islam."

"Libyan officials blamed pro-Gaddafi loyalists..."

Seems like an odd-coincidence since protesters also stormed an US satellite in Egypt the day before over issues completely UNRELATED to Gaddaffi.

We AIDED the Libyan revolutionists in their overtake of Gaddaffi. Without our help, I'm pretty sure a formal army with air support, artillery fire, and tanks/armored vehicles would have steamrolled whatever resistance their revolution put together via facebook+twitter.

And these same revolutionaries have the gall to slay OUR Ambassador to THEIR country because of a VIDEO that some nutjob extremist posted to youtube & made viral.

Like... I can't even explain that type of retarded mentality that takes to conjur up inside one's mind; Libya and Egypt are literally living 250 years in the past and have an extremely warped sense of reality.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. If I hated the French but needed their help to purge the British, I would be a fool not to accept it. We all have goals here to meet people. Nobody acts out of pure compassion in situations such as this.

You are all worked up in a tissy about the flag, what about the ambassador who was murdered along with 3 other American citizens?

I couldn't care less if a US flag is torn down, people do that here all the time, however, the murder of an ambassador is one of the most grievous offenses that can be done diplomatically.

You are going see some nasty repercussions for that... diplomats are sacrosanct, not to be touched, EVER. That is one thing that the international community agrees on, even "rogue nations" know better so now that one of ours was murdered (not by Libya of course) hell is going to rain down upon them from every other nation that has diplomats there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOL Renegade

What they believed is very different from actual reality.

I would never support a genocide, but if OB wants to kill all muslims, we'd have to start with the homosexuals before anybody else. What's more genetically inferior than a total inability to reproduce? I'm just pointing out his hilarious hypocrisy. Killing someone for their genetic traits is a much better reason than killing someone because they believe in a different fairy tale than you do.

These extremists in the middle east are a lot less concerned about Islam and a lot more concerned about establishing their anti-American dictatorships. It's all political. Religion is just the shield for it. I'm surprised you're not a Taliban supporter, overbear. With all the fascist type <del>****</del> you post on here, you'd fit right in with those guys....except for the whole gay thing.

The film:

Wow... someone used Windows Moviemaker... that is the worst editing/voiceover work that I have ever seen/heard. And to think they spent 5 million on that steaming pile of crap.

Ibrahim Dabbashi told the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday that the attack, which killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three American diplomats, "in no way serves the interests of Libya" and "gravely damages the image of Islam."

I don't think it did much damage to the image of Islam. It probably just confirmed people's feelings about Islam. It's not like getting their panties in a bunch over something inconsequential and then proceeding to harm innocent people is a new behavior for Muslim extremists.

__________________
ďA strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
-Thomas Jefferson